Iran Becomes Member of Durban II Inner Drafting Circle

EYEontheUN reports that Iran has become a member of the "Group of Friends of the Chair", an informal group of states charged with taking the first steps towards producing a Durban II manifesto. Anne Bayefsky, Editor of EYEontheUN says: "the travesty of Durban II as a vehicle for getting serious about combating racism is more obvious than ever, as a regime whose President is a Holocaust-denier acquires an important role in shaping the result."

Durban II - known formally as the UN Durban Review Conference - will be held next April in Geneva. It is charged with implementing the notorious 2001 Durban Declaration which found Israel guilty of racism and gave no other country even a passing mention.

The role of his "friends" is described by Armenian Chairman Zohrab Mnatsakanian as "engaging in brainstorming and consolidating inputs." Other members of the behind-the-scenes group are Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Egypt. Bayefsky adds, "one shudders to imagine the brainstorming among such human rights paragons."

The "friends of the Chair" have already met twice in July 2008 and intend to meet again shortly.

By creating this informal group, UN states have deliberately created a forum which excludes NGOs for the first time from the Durban II process.

The first contribution of the "Group of Friends" will be filed at the next stage of the process, the 'Intersessional Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group' session to be held in Geneva September 1-5, 2008.

"The authority figures surrounding Durban II remind us once again that this forum is an instrument serving those states bent on defeating human rights not protecting them," said Bayefsky.

Promoting the Al Dura Myth: The Role of Amnesty and HRW

Promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli Conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

The French court’s dismissal of the libel case brought by France 2 TV, in response to evidence that the death of Muhammad al-Dura was staged, has increased the examination of the NGO campaigns that propelled this issue.

The unquestioned repetition of claims by Palestinian “eyewitnesses” without further investigation reflects the standard pattern used by Amnesty International and HRW in condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report that labeled al Dura’s alleged death as “a case of indiscriminate and illegal use of force.” HRW’s lengthy report based on “the accounts of eyewitnesses” simply repeated the claims of the Palestinian cameraman for France 2, without any independent verification.

HRW’s press release (November 21 2000) ostensibly condemned a Palestinian bombing attack on an Israeli school bus, in which a number of teachers and children were killed and injured. But most of this document refers to the “indiscriminate or excessive use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” citing the al Dura allegations, and anonymous witnesses.

Amnesty International claimed that al Dura was deliberately targeted, and repeated Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) claims, with no supporting evidence.

Amnesty also used this unverified case as evidence of “long-standing patterns of human rights violation suffered almost exclusively by Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli forces.”

The image of al-Dura was a central icon at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference, in which both NGO superpowers played a central role. The father, Jamal, was a featured speaker in Durban.

Background:

On September 30, 2000, journalist Charles Enderlin from France 2 TV reported that Israeli soldiers shot and killed Muhammad al-Dura, a 12-year old Palestinian. Iconic images of al-Dura's death, filmed by France 2 cameraman Talal Abu Rahmeh, were shown worldwide, inflaming the Palestinian violence, and this was used to justify further attacks. Based entirely on this single source, major news organizations repeated the accusation and blamed Israel for “deliberately target[ing]” the child. An Israeli investigation showed that al Dura could not have been killed by the IDF (based in part on the angles made by the bullet holes), France 2 refused to release the unedited video footage, and Richard Landes suggested that the incident was staged in the framework of “Pallywood”. Philippe Karsenty charged France 2 with inventing and then covering up the al Dura myth, and on May 21, 2008, a French court ruled that he was not libelous in his criticism. The court also emphasized the evidence that Abu Rahma could not be considered “perfectly credible”, given his partisanship.

From the beginning, the politicized NGO network involved in human rights issues promoted the al Dura images, which were central icons at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference. And, the father, Jamal, was a featured speaker who was brought to Durban in order to amplify the impact. Many Palestinian NGOs joined the campaign, in close cooperation with NGO superpowers, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In their publications on this issue, the authors of these reports never questioned the accuracy of the claims or the lack of credible witnesses. This incident was also featured prominently in false claims that Israel was “deliberately targeting” Palestinian children.

Human Rights Watch

In a reported published in October 2000, Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned Israel for the alleged death of Mohammed Al-Dirra, “a case of indiscriminate and illegal use of force.” The HRW report claimed to have compiled the report based “on the accounts of eyewitnesses,” but the only one that is mentioned is the Palestinian cameraman for France 2. HRW extensively repeated Talal Abu Rahmeh’s claims word for word, without any independent verification.

HRW also issued a press release on November 21 2000, headlined “Israel/Palestinian Authority: Gaza Bus Bombing Condemned -- All deliberate attacks on children must be investigated, prosecuted”. This statement was ostensibly issued to condemn a Palestinian bombing attack on an Israeli school bus, in which a number of teachers and children were killed and injured. However, HRW devoted over half the document to a condemnation of “indiscriminate or excessive use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),” citing the al Dura allegations, and anonymous “witnesses”.

Amnesty International

In 6 separate reports and publications between October 2000 and November 2001, Amnesty International repeated the allegation that Israel had killed Al Dura. Amnesty International’s major report Broken Lives – A Year of Intifada (April 2001), included a section headlined “Killings by Israelis”, which highlighted the iconic photo of al Dura and his father. The text dismissed the IDF’s investigation, but quotes extensively from a “sworn affidavit” from Talal Abu Rahma, provided by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), version of the events. Amnesty concludes that Israel was responsible for the killing: “Photographs taken by journalists…showed a pattern of bullet holes in the wall…where the two were sheltering. This suggested that Jamal and Muhammad al-Dura were targeted by the Israeli post opposite where they were cowering” (page 16, emphasis added).

Other Amnesty publications exploit this incident to condemn Israel, repeating the allegation that Al Dura “was shot dead by Israeli soldiers” and demonstrating “one of the many long-standing patterns of human rights violation suffered almost exclusively by Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli forces.”

For an appendix of Amnesty and HRW statements on Al Dura, click here.

UN Human Rights Council: Petition Against UN Incitement to Terrorism

More evidence of human rights frauds as of June 16, 2008:

www.EYEontheUN.org

Petition Presented Against UN Incitement to Terrorism

A UN report to the Human Rights Council by Special Rapporteur John Dugard disregards international legal standards against terrorism and excuses the killing of innocents.

We call upon the United Nations to withdraw this discreditable report from circulation.

Watch the video here.

Adalah: Abusing "Civil Rights” to Delegitimize Israel

From NGO Monitor:

Funded by the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation, and a number of European governments, Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel claims to be an "independent" organization that promotes "civil and political rights" for the Arab minority in Israel. However NGO Monitor's detailed analysis shows that Adalah is active in promoting the Durban strategy of demonizing Israel using the rhetoric of human rights, "apartheid" and "war crimes”. Adalah’s campaign for a “Democratic Constitution” is based on “a one-state solution”, meaning the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.

Response to Nicolas Kristof´s op-ed "The Two Israels"

A Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, from Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director of NGO Monitor:

In his oped, Nicolas Kristof (June 22, “The Two Israels”) illustrates the danger of the “halo effect” that surrounds many powerful non-governmental organizations, which use distorted human rights claims to promote ideological agendas. While otherwise very professional journalists question and independently verify the claims of governments, corporations, and others, the statements of groups that assert moral objectives tend to be taken at face value. In this article, Kristof extols B’tselem and Machsom Watch (the women who "volunteer at checkpoints to help Palestinians through"). As documented by NGO Monitor, both are political organizations based in Israel that have appropriated human rights rhetoric for partisan goals, mix fact with fiction, and grossly distort history in order to promote their private agendas.

For example, Kristof repeats the simplistic statements of these NGOs regarding Hebron – a city of immense religious and historical importance to the Jewish people – without mentioning the impact of the 1929 massacre and expulsion of the entire Jewish community. A limited return to this historic city was only possible after 1967. Since this context is inconvenient for promoting B’tselem’s political objectives, which would mean again removing the Jewish population from Hebron, these political activists focus instead on one-sided human rights allegations in which Palestinians are always victims, and Israel is always the oppressor.

Seduced by the “halo effect”, Kristof uses B’tselem’s very narrow window to strip the wider context and sell his own interpretation of the conflict and strip it of the wider context. Following B’tselem’s lead, Kristof also ignores the human rights violations of Jewish Israelis in Hebron, including the murder of a 10 month old baby – Shalhevet Pas by a Palestinian sniper. And claims regarding the impact of Israel’s separation barrier and checkpoints completely erases the fact that hundreds or perhaps thousands of Israeli lives that have been spared by preventing the entry of suicide bombers. This is also a primary human rights issue, which the activists in B’tselem and Machsom Watch find inconvenient, and which no human rights group has documented using video cameras.

Expropriating human rights rhetoric for partisan claims, erasing the context and complexity of conflict situations, and applying human rights exclusively to one side of a conflict is morally unacceptable. Such biased approaches from NGOs have severely undermined the ethical foundations and credibility of human rights, which are by definition universal and must be applied equally.

Gerald Steinberg
Executive Director
NGO Monitor
Jerusalem, Israel

HRW’s Letter to President Bush on Gaza: The “Collective Punishment” Hoax

Promoting critical debate and accountability of Human Rights NGOs in the Arab Israeli conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

In the first five months of 2008, HRW has issued thirteen statements condemning Israel’s response to deliberate attacks aimed at Israeli civilians launched from Gaza. [1] These statements exploit international legal terminology, repeat incomplete or false analyses of international law, and minimize or omit Hamas’ attacks on Israeli border crossings where humanitarian aid is delivered, as well as the diversion of this aid by Hamas. In contrast to carefully written, accurate and well-sourced legal analyses, these publications reflect a dominant political agenda.

HRW’s May 13, 2008, open letter to US President George Bush, signed by Joe Stork and published with highly politicized NGOs Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, (both of which have had to admit false factual claims in recent weeks) highlights this practice. The following is a point-by-point analysis of this letter:

Claim: Israel’s restrictions on the flow of goods and services into Gaza “constitute[s] collective punishment against the civilian population, a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

Analysis: HRW continues to apply the label of “collective punishment” selectively and incorrectly to Israel (see NGO Monitor’s analysis here). Restriction on the flow of goods in a war environment does not constitute “collective punishment” under international law. “Collective punishment” refers to the imposition of criminal penalties and does not refer to the legal act of retorsion (e.g. sanctions, blockades). In fact, pursuant to Article 23 of the Geneva Convention (which sets standards for the provision of limited humanitarian aid), [2] Israel has no obligation to provide any goods, even minimal humanitarian supplies, if it is “satisfied” that such goods will be diverted or supply of such goods will aid Hamas in its war effort. As numerous credible accounts have reported, Hamas has diverted supplies from Gaza’s civilian population. Although Israel is under no legal obligation and despite the diversion as well as attacks on the Israeli border crossings, including the April 9 attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot and the May 22 truck bomb attack at the Erez crossing, Israel continues to provide hundreds of tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza on a weekly basis. This is above and beyond any obligation under international law, and the claim of “collective punishment” is entirely unjustified.

Claim: HRW claims that “[t]he Israeli policy’s impact on the ability of armed groups in Gaza to carry out their attacks is highly debatable, and some Israeli military officials have openly questioned its effectiveness.”

Analysis: In making this claim, Joe Stork and HRW proffer military expertise that they do not possess and rely on unnamed and unverifiable “sources” to back these allegations. Moreover, they refuse to attribute responsibility to Hamas for the attacks, instead employing the phrase “armed groups.”

Claim: HRW argues that the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas “[does] not permit unlawful actions – in this case collective punishment – by the other.”

Analysis: This claim attempts to contort Israel’s lawful right to exercise self-defense against attacks on its civilians into a violation of international law. As shown above, Israel is not engaging in “collective punishment,” nor are Israel’s actions in any way “unlawful.” Indeed, under international law, the only legitimate uses of force are for purposes of self-defense or pursuant to Security Council authorization under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Article 51 of the UN Charter, states: “[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Israel, therefore, has the unequivocal right to engage in self-defense to prevent attacks against its civilian population.

Claim: Israel maintains “continued effective occupation of the Gaza Strip.”

Analysis: Gaza cannot be considered “occupied” under any reasonable interpretation of international law. HRW claims that Gaza is occupied because Israel “still maintains effective control over the territory via its control of Gaza's land borders, airspace, [and] territorial waters”. This argument is false as a matter of fact and a matter of law, and largely parrots a “legal” opinion circulated by the PLO shortly prior to Israel’s disengagement. Under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as judicial interpretation of these provisions, [3] the standard of “effective control” refers solely to the exercise by a hostile army of governmental authority – not control of borders. Thus, in no way can Israel be said to exercise governmental authority in Gaza. Indeed, as Egypt controls the southern border of Gaza, and based upon its occupation of Gaza from 1948-67, under HRW’s reasoning, Egypt would also be considered to be occupying Gaza.

Claim: Gaza continues to be occupied because Israel “maintains effective control over … tax collection, and population registry.”

Analysis: The statement that Israel controls tax collection and the population registry in Gaza is also clearly false and HRW provides no source to support this allegation. Beginning in 1994, the Palestinian Authority became responsible for the establishment and collection of all taxes within Gaza, and this is now controlled by Hamas following its June 2007 coup. Israel has no power to set or collect such taxes. Pursuant to international agreement, Israel collects custom duties for cross-border transactions on behalf of the PA, but only a highly distorted interpretation would conclude that Israel is “controlling” tax collection in Gaza. Moreover, Israel has no control over what population registry the PA and Hamas choose to use (the fact that the PA and Hamas continued to use of the population registry system established by Israel following 1967 is not Israel's decision.) Finally, if Israel was still occupying Gaza, pursuant to Article 43 of the Hague convention, it would be obligated to re-enter Gaza in order to restore public order and security. HRW and Gisha cannot possibly be arguing for re-invasion of Gaza by Israel.

Claim: Gaza continues to be “occupied” because Israel “is the major source of electricity and, because Gaza residents are not permitted to obtain fuel except via Israel.”

Analysis: The status of “occupation” is not created by reliance on a foreign power for fuel or electricity. And under international law as analyzed above, Israel is not obligated to supply Gaza with fuel and electricity. Moreover, no obligation is created merely because there is a dependence on Israel for these items. HRW also does not provide any source to back the claim that “Gaza residents are not permitted to obtain fuel except via Israel.” In any event, Israel continues to supply Gaza weekly with millions of liters of fuel and thousands of kilowatts of electricity.

Claim: Gaza continues to be “occupied” because “Israeli military forces can and regularly do re-enter Gaza at will.”

Analysis: Again, territory is considered “occupied” under international law solely if the hostile army exercises the functions of “governmental authority.” The test is not whether an army has the potential to enter a territory to conduct military operations.

Conclusion: HRW’s “Open Letter to George Bush” continues the organization’s practice of distorting international law, creating legal obligations where none exist, and ignoring the role of Hamas in Gaza in order to advance its political agenda rather than universal human rights.

------

[1] In contrast to these thirteen statements, HRW issued no condemnation of the March 2008 murder of children in a Jerusalem school by a Palestinian terrorist; of the 2008 February suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Dimona; the murder of several Israeli civilians in rocket and shooting attacks carried out by Hamas; the April 9 suicide bombing at the Nahal Oz fuel depot; and the Katuysha rocket attack on an Ashkelon children’s health clinic on May 14, 2008. HRW’s February 29, 2008, report “Gaza Strip/Israel: Civilians Bear Brunt of Attacks,” is the only report issued in 2008 condemning the specific killing of an Israeli civilian in a Qassam attack. This report, however, largely condemns Israel for its self-defensive measures in Gaza. The May 9 killing of an Israeli civilian is referenced in HRW’s open letter to President George Bush. The victim, however, is not named, and the purpose of the letter is to condemn Israeli policy, not Hamas’ targeting of civilians.

[2] Article 23 provides that

Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,

(b) that the control may not be effective, or

(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may ma permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

It is argued that Article 23 does not apply to the case of Gaza. If that is so, then Israel is under no legal duty to provide even the minimal humanitarian supplies listed in Article 23.

[3] See, e.g., The Hostages Trial, Trial of Wilhem List, United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Volume VIII, 1949, at 55-6, available here (holding that “an occupation indicates the exercise of governmental authority to the exclusion of the established government . . . To the extent that the occupant’s control is maintained and that of the civil government eliminated, the area will be said to be occupied”.)

Washington to Limit Contacts with UN Rights Council

More about the Islamic cesspool on 1st Avenue in Manhattan that festers and incubates hatred for Jews and Americans. From Washington to Limit Contacts with UN Rights Council:

The U.S. has decided to limit further its involvement with the UN Human Rights Council due to its "pathetic" record, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday. Secretary of State Rice "has taken the decision that we will engage the Human Rights Council really only when we believe that there are matters of deep national interest before the council," he said.

"Instead of focusing on some of the real and deep human rights issues around the world, it has really turned into a forum that seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel."

Amnesty in 2007: Attacking Democracy instead of Oppression in Middle East

Promoting accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Via NGO Monitor:

Summary: NGO Monitor has systematically analyzed Amnesty International’s Middle East coverage in 2007, applying a quantitative methodology, similar to that used to examine the agenda of Human Rights Watch.

The results show that in 2007 Amnesty singled out Israel for more condemnation than Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and Algeria.

More items were published condemning Israel, than the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah combined. If detailed reports are used as an indicator, Amnesty ranks Israel and Iraq as equally the worst human rights abusers in the Middle East.

Israel’s democratic and open society ironically invites disproportionately negative reporting from Amnesty International. Access to information facilitates more comprehensive research than in less democratic regimes; democracy demands higher standards of human rights, according to Amnesty International’s Israel branch; external factors, such as media attention, dictate AI’s policy.

Amnesty's 2008 annual report (covering events in 2007) is yet another example of the NGO's highly biased approach. It presents a gross distortion of the conflict, selectively reports events to remove the context of terrorism and ignore human rights issues not related to its political agenda, while repeating un-sourced and anecdotal claims.

The Israeli Justice Ministry's response to Amnesty's June 2007 report, "Enduring occupation Palestinians under siege in the West Bank” stated that “Amnesty’s report is one-sided, immoral, and riddled with mistakes and numerous factual and legal inaccuracies, including scant mention of Palestinian terrorism."

Click here to read the complete report.

NGO Monitor's 2007 Report on HRW: Bias and Double Standards Continue

When it comes to promoting accountability in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Human Rights Watch once again fails becuase of its bias against Israel.

"The point is not to equate, excuse or balance abuses but to demonstrate that reporting is based on human rights principles rather than partisan considerations." HRW's Position Paper on the Durban Preparatory Committee (April 21, 2008):

The following analysis [by NGO Monitor] demonstrates that HRW's own activities related to Israel continue to fall short of this basic standard of universality

Summary:

• Analysis of Human Rights Watch's use of the rhetoric of international law and other terminology shows continued double standards and misleading or false claims.
• HRW accuses Israel of “collective punishment” of Palestinians in a way that is inconsistent with both international law and past and present usage of the term by HRW itself.
• HRW’s focus on Israel in 2007 dropped to 2005 levels after 2006 marked a return to the extreme bias of the 2000-2004 period. The change in 2007 allowed more resources to be focused on countries committing major human rights violations.
• However, disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued, with major reports covering 400 pages in 2007, using the same methodologies as in 2006 that lack credibility.
• This contrasts with the limited attention on human rights violations in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the region.
• Israel was the focus of more multimedia items (audio, video, graphics) than any other country in the region.
• Reports on Israel continue to be based on unverifiable evidence provided by “eyewitnesses,” selected journalists, and other inappropriate sources. In some cases hard evidence has shown this testimony to be blatantly untrue.
• HRW mentioned one or more of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in a total of only 6 publications. Of these, only two refer to them by name; the other references are in passing.

This report includes quantitative analyses of publications from HRW’s Middle East and North Africa section, using a weighted scale methodology consistent with NGO Monitor’s previous analyses, and an assessment of the use of language in the HRW publications.

NGO Monitor’s analysis of Human Rights Watch's (HRW) output devoted to each country in the Middle East and North Africa region shows that the focus on and condemnations of Israel in 2007 returned to 2005 levels (see 2005 report). This follows a sharp increase in 2006 (see 2006 report). However, Israel is still the focus of nine percent of HRW's output on the region– significantly greater than Libya, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and other chronic human rights violators. The evaluation is based on a point system which accounts for both the volume of publications and their significance (a report clearly being much more significant and requiring more resources than a press release –see the methodological section of the appendix).

Use of Multimedia items

In 2007 there were more multimedia items on Israel (6 audio, video and graphics items) than any other country (4 for Hamas, 4 for Iran and 3 for Egypt – other countries received 2 or fewer). Most countries, including Israel, featured in one audio item each as part of the 2007 World Report. Israel's multimedia items also included audio commentary by Marc Garlasco on cluster munitions, pictures and audio on medical evacuations3, pictures and audio on students trapped in Gaza, and a video on cluster munitions. Multi-media material requires a higher level of investment by Human Rights Watch and can in many cases result in a larger impact than is the case in other types of HRW activities. When this increased impact is disproportionately focused on Israel, the issue of double standards becomes relevant.

Use of Reports

HRW puts a great deal of effort and resources into its major reports, often including a press conference and other public relations activities to accompany the publication. In many cases, the focus of a report is chosen weeks or months in advance of publication, and reflects a strategic decision regarding HRW’s priorities.
The disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued in 2007. The number of reports featuring Israel in 2007 (2)4 was equal to the number on Hezbollah, Egypt, and Iraq. Only Lebanon featured in more reports (3).5 Significantly, HRW officials chose not to issue any reports on Iran, Libya and Morocco in 2007. (In contrast, HRW’s press releases focusing on human rights violations in Iran constituted 17 percent of total press releases in the region, with Egypt targeted in a further 17 percent. Israel received 9% of the press releases, a proportionate amount given it received 10% of the over all focus).

Priorities within the Arab Israeli conflict

HRW’s priorities are also reflected in an analysis of the relative coverage of Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The analysis shows minimal attention to internal Palestinian fighting and an over emphasis on Israeli actions in both the conflict with Hezbollah and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Figure 3 demonstrates almost the same distribution between publications focusing on Israel and the total focused on all groups in conflict with Israel (i.e. Palestinian groups and Hezbollah). This was despite the fact that nearly half of all Palestinian fatalities were caused by intra-Palestinian violence during 2007. 6

When Hamas seized control of Gaza by violent coup in June 2007, there were many clear violations of human rights.7 Human Rights Watch itself documented a few briefly. One example was the execution by Hamas of a cook for Mahmoud Abbas’s Presidential Guard (press release “Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes” - June 13). The cook was executed by “throwing him to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City”. Over the year, only 2 published items from HRW focused primarily on internal Palestinian violence, a third published item covered both internal Palestinian violence and attacks on Israelis. This is in comparison with seven documents focused on Palestinian attacks on Israelis.

Further comparisons between Israel and those in conflict with her are available in the appendix, including a breakdown of the collective term Palestinians.8

Related articles - by relevance (full list)

Themes: Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HomePage Essential: Human Rights Watch (HRW)
October 17, 2006

NGO Monitor Reports: Human Rights Watch letter to Knesset condemning terror suspect detention bill
April 12, 2006
NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 4 No. 8)

NGO Monitor Reports: Report on HRW’s Activities in 2006: Political Bias Undermines Human Rights
June 26, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: HRW/FIDH/OMCT statement on NGO official linked to PFLP
May 14, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Analysis of Ken Roth´s Defense of HRW´s Policy on Israel
March 15, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Gaza beach incident: Timeline of HRW involvement and activities June 9-21 2006
June 21, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "HRW´s Report on Gaza: Lacking Credibility"
October 18, 2004
NGO Monitor

Articles of Interest: "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia"
February 02, 2007
Andres Ballesteros, Jorge A. Restrepo, Michael Spagat, and Juan F. Vargas

NGO Monitor Reports: Amnesty and HRW Claims Discredited in Detailed Report
December 28, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "Activity Summary of Human Rights Watch March 2003 - March 2004 " April 14, 2004

Amnesty International Urged to Withdraw Invitation to Qaddafi Supporter

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. Via UN Watch:

Amnesty International should reconsider its speaking invitation to Jean Ziegler, a UN official who co-founded the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize and has supported the regimes of Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro and other major human rights violators, said UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring organization (Click to read UN Watch letter).

At its annual Swiss conference to be held this Saturday in Bern, Amnesty International plans to feature Mr. Ziegler together with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey. In a letter sent today to Amnesty Secretary-General Irene Khan, who will be appearing on the same panel, UN Watch said it was “unconscionable that Amnesty, a leading human rights organization, would invite Mr. Ziegler, and we urge you to reconsider.”

As was reported in Time Magazine and elsewhere, Mr. Ziegler co-founded the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize in 1989, seen by many as a propaganda vehicle of the Libyan regime. Past recipients include Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The letter to Amnesty accused Mr. Ziegler of “supporting regimes that, according to your own reports, rank among the world’s worst violators of human rights, such as Zimbabwe, which Mr. Ziegler defended, saying, ‘Mugabe has history and morality with him.’”

UN Watch noted that Mr. Ziegler was recently elected to be an expert advisor to the UN Human Rights Council “by the same countries that decided to ignore the killings in Tibet and then to eviscerate protection of free speech.” Ziegler’s election drew strong protests from human rights groups and dissidents, parliamentarians in Europe and Canada, and editorialists in The Guardian, The Times of London and Investor's Business Daily.

“The career of Mr. Ziegler symbolizes the cynical subversion of human rights that has so harmed the United Nations and its Human Rights Council... By granting Mr. Ziegler a podium at your conference, Amnesty International will harm its own reputation, and, worse, undermine the principles of the international human rights movement—and the cause of the millions of victims we are sworn to protect,” said UN Watch.

"This sends the wrong message at the wrong time," said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.

Israel to bar UN official for comparing Israelis to Nazis

Finally Israel is doing something right, considering Richard Falk does everything all wrong. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it will not allow the U.N. official appointed to investigate Israeli-Palestinian human rights to enter the country, after he stood by comments comparing Israelis to Nazis.

Richard Falk is scheduled to take up his post with the U.N. Human Rights Council in May, but Israel's Foreign Ministry said it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, at least until a September meeting of the council.

At that meeting, Israel intends to ask the council to expand the envoy's mission to include investigating Palestinian human rights abuses against Israelis. The mandate currently allows him to monitor only human rights violations by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC

Below is the updated list of one-sided resolutions against Israel adopted by the UN Human Rights Council since its creation in June 2006. The council was designed as an improvement over the discredited Commission on Human Rights, but has tragically repeated and even intensified the same biases.

The council has criticized Israel on 19 separate occasions, in resolutions that grant effective impunity to Hamas, Hezbollah and their state sponsors. Obsessed with condemning Israel, the Council in its first year failed to condemn human rights violations occurring in any of the world’s 191 other countries. In its second year, the Council finally criticized one other country when it “deplored” the situation in Burma, but only after it censored out initial language containing the word “condemn.”

The Council’s fixation with Israel is not limited to resolutions. Israel is the only country listed on the Council’s permanent agenda (Item 7).

Moreover, Israel is the only country subjected to an investigatory mandate that examines the actions of only one side, presumes those actions to be violations, and which is not subject to regular review.

To see the Council's resolutions during its first year (2006-2007), click here

To see the Council's resolutions during its second year (2007-2008), click here

Cross-posted on Stop Raping Israel

A reminder for those who don't remember

Israel evicted nearly 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, yet all Israel received in return was - and continues to be - a steady barrage of rocket fire from Muslim and Hamas-occupied territory. Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by the Muslim terrorist organization in June 2006 begins today his 22nd month in captivity.

Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Danny Gillerman, summed up the situation by telling the Security Council on March 25th that the apparent lull in Hamas rocket attacks is only superficial, because the bombs keep ticking, while Hamas is using this time to smuggle in and produce more rockets. He commented:

Whereas Israel makes all efforts to protect civilians in accordance with international law, Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets into Israeli civilian areas. Whereas Israel ensures that medicines and fuel enter the Gaza Strip to reach hospitals and needy civilians, Hamas hijacks those trucks and diverts them to its bomb making factories and terrorist camps. Whereas Israel allows humanitarian convoys into Gaza - more than 1,600 trucks and over 20,000 tons of aid in recent weeks alone - Hamas cynically fires on those same crossing points, so it can fabricate a pretext for inciting the Palestinian public against Israel.

I am sure that many in this Council watched with horror and disgust as Hamas terrorists joyfully fired their rifles into the air [after the Merkaz HaRav slaughter] and passed out candy to children in celebration. If anyone doubted what the extremists stand for, the reaction in Gaza to the murder of eight Israeli boys sets the record straight. It was also a stark reminder that these were the same people who danced on the rooftops after 9/11.

"Which is why, Mr. President, it was so sad and disturbing that the Council could not condemn the terrorist attack... The Security Council has a longstanding practice of condemning terrorism, no matter the victims, no matter the location, no matter the perpetrator, no matter the motivation. Yet the Council could not unanimously condemn this terrorist attack and intentional killing of civilians, for the Council was blocked by a politicized opposition, of one Member State [Libya - ed.] in particular...

INN reports that Gillerman also addressed the situation along Israel's northern border, noting that Hizbullah is violating the ceasefire reached after the Second Lebanon War nearly two years ago in three areas: Weapons continue to flow illegally through the porous Syrian-Lebanese border; Hizbullah is rearming, and "has already adapted its weaponry and tactics so as to take into account the UNIFIL presence south of the Litani River, as its spokesmen openly declare; and Israeli soldiers Udi Goldwasser and Eldad Regev have still not been released by their Hizbullah kidnappers.

Take Action: Urge Swiss to Cancel UN Nomination of Jean Ziegler

Another human rights fraud is about to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council. Via UN Watch:

Stop Jean Ziegler Before March 26, 2008

Who is Jean Ziegler?

This supporter of dictators is assured election to the UN Human Rights Council -- unless Switzerland is persuaded to withdraw his nomination.

First, watch this compelling video.

UN Watch has learned that on next Wednesday, March 26, 2008, the United Nations is expected to elect Jean Ziegler—founder of the "Muammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize"—as one of only three Western advisory experts on the Human Rights Council. As the darling of the council's ruling Arab and Third World blocs, Ziegler's election is virtually assured.

Unless his sponsor changes course.

Ziegler enjoys close ties with Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, and according to a report this week from the Human Rights Tribune, Swiss diplomats are engaged in an intense lobbying and vote-trading campaign to elect Ziegler, whom they nominated in November. Only the Swiss withdrawal of their nomination will prevent Ziegler from being elected.

Click Here to Take Action.

New video documents how Jean Ziegler served as an apologist for repressive rulers like Colonel Khaddafi and Fidel Castro.

Analysis:

Astonishing to believe — but at the UN, too often, not too astonishing for it not to happen. Jean Ziegler has a long history of supporting unsavory rulers and regimes, including some of the world's worst human rights violators. As UN hunger expert for the past 7 years, he ignored regions with the most severe food crises, and instead devoted his time to anti-Western polemics.

• Apologist for some of the worst human rights criminals of our time.
• After Fidel Castro imprisoned 70 journalists, Ziegler proclaimed "total support for the Cuban revolution." During an official visit to the Communist island in October, Ziegler hailed the virtues of Castro regime even while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.
• "...Ziegler went to Hanoi during the '80s, where he heaped praise upon General Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh. Indeed, it would be hard to find an intellectual more stained by collaboration with evil regimes in the 20th century than Mr. Ziegler ." (Jan Marejko, "Che Guevara Lives at the UN," August 2002.)
• Served Ethiopian dictator Mengistu — who used famine as a weapon to kill thousands — by helping draft one-party constitution.
• Abused UN food mandate. As UN special rapporteur on the right to food for the past seven years, Mr. Ziegler ignored many of the world’s most starving populations, instead focusing attention on his personal political agenda. As documented in the UN Watch report “Blind to Burundi,” during 2000 to 2004, Mr. Ziegler systematically failed to speak out for numerous food emergencies, in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone and elsewhere.
• In 2002 he praised the Zimbabwean dictator, saying, “Mugabe has history and morality with him.” He paid visits to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea.
• In 2006, during an interview in Lebanon, Mr. Ziegler said, “I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers...”

In 1989, four months after Libyan bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Jean Ziegler establishes "Khaddafi Human Rights Prize," in collaboration with Libyan dictator.

In 2002, prize is awarded to French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy—and to Jean Ziegler himself. Ziegler goes to Libya to attend ceremony, but claims he went for "unspecified UN business."

Click here to take action now.

HRW's Gaza Statement: Moral Muddle and False Allegations

Promoting Accountability in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. From NGO Monitor:

• The statement written by Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemning Israel’s response to rocket bombardment from Gaza exploits and distorts international law.
• Of the 34 paragraphs, Stork only mentions the hundreds of rocket attacks against Israel in two sentences, demonstrating the double standards in this invective.
• HRW’s claim that Gaza remains “occupied” is a politically based fiction designed to negate Israel’s legal and moral right to self-defense.
• There is no legal or moral precedent for a country to be forced to provide a hostile neighbor with the means to continue attacks on its territory and against its civilians.
• HRW’s statement is a moral muddle that further undermines the universality of human rights.

HRW Accuses Israel of “Word Games” and Patronizes Hamas

A number of politicized NGOs have condemned Israel’s responses to the rocket attacks from Gaza. In parallel, HRW, World Vision, FIDH, Al Haq, and Defence for Children International,1 addressed the UN Human Rights Council, repeating their allegations against Israel. In contrast, as numerous media reports demonstrated, the impact on the civilian population was orchestrated by the Hamas leadership, including staged scenes of hardship.

Joel Stork of Human Rights Watch (HRW) joined this campaign with a statement on January 26. Following HRW’s well-established pattern of statements related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, this one paints a very incomplete and selective picture of the crisis in Gaza. Joe Stork, who has been "acting director" of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division for many years, and has a history of anti-Israel campaigning, accuses Israeli leaders of “playing word games", as if the daily rocket attacks were of no consequence. Stork patronizingly absolves Hamas of all responsibility for the attacks and response, claiming that “Gazans can’t turn on the lights, get tap water, buy enough food, or earn a living without Israel’s consent.” HRW demands that Israel end its “collective punishment” (a term that is not applicable to the Israeli policy2), while failing to demand that the Hamas government put an end to the daily rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by “Palestinian armed groups”.

Stork Invents “Facts”

Stork also gets the facts wrong, including the false implication that Israel cut off electricity supplies to Gaza.3 In reality, Israel decreased fuel supplies but maintained its provision of electricity to Gaza. HRW’s statement also omits the fact that Israel supplied Gaza with cooking gas, 500,000 liters of diesel fuel for generators, primarily for hospitals, 2.2 million liters of industrial fuel for power plants, and 50 trucks of humanitarian aid.
While many journalists acknowledged that Hamas manipulated and manufactured this “humanitarian crisis”, including ordering bakery owners to keep their stores closed, this was inconsistent with Stork’s objective. He also ignored evidence that fuel intended for a European hospital in Gaza was diverted to supply the “Hamas-affiliated Executive Force.” HRW’s portrayal of the mass exodus through the border with Egypt as an act of desperation in response to the Israeli “blockade” is also misleading, in the light of the televisions and other luxury goods purchased by the Palestinians. They were clearly not starving, or in the middle of a life-threatening crisis.

HRW’s Own Word Games

As in most of HRW’s reporting on the Israeli-Arab conflict, this statement includes numerous misstatements and distortions of international law.4 Following Palestinian claims, HRW asserts that since Israel “still controls Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and land borders”, it is an “occupier”, but fails to cite any provision of the Geneva or Hague Conventions – the international treaties that establish the law of occupation. In contrast, Article 6of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states that a foreign power is only considered an occupier "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory." Since 1995, and certainly since Israel’s disengagement in 2005, Gaza's Palestinian population has been under Palestinian Authority jurisdiction.5 And Stork’s “facts” to the contrary, Gaza’s southern border is controlled by Egypt (and not only for “this week”, in Stork’s version.)

Minimizing Palestinian Terror

Stork’s ideology-based analysis also minimizes the context of terror, making only passing reference to the barrage of rocket attacks launched from Gaza on Israeli civilians. Between January 16 and 21, 2008, more than 225 rockets have been launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza against Israeli towns. From June to December 2007, the totals were 475 missiles and 631 mortar bombs. In addition, HRW fails to ascribe responsibility for these attacks to the Hamas government but rather only to “Palestinian armed groups” and “militants”.

Following HRW’s long-established pattern of ignoring the human rights of Israelis under daily bombardment from Gaza, Stork claims Israel’s real security concerns are merely a pretext to “arbitrarily block[], delay[] and harass[] people with emergency medical problems who need to leave Gaza for urgent care” or to prevent “6,000 people with foreign citizenship, permanent foreign residency, work permits, student visas, or university admissions abroad,” from leaving Gaza. In this case, as well HRW is very selective with factual claims, omitting several instances where Palestinians have exploited Israel’s humanitarian policies to carry out terror attacks. In May 2007, for instance, a pregnant woman and her niece, who had been granted permission to seek medical treatment in Ramallah, were arrested for planning to carry out a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv and Netanya. In another incident four weeks ago, terrorists attempted to smuggle in explosives materials into Gaza hidden in sacks of sugar marked as European Union aid.

The result is a moral muddle and double standards that undermine universal human rights. As in many of its previous campaigns, such as “Razing Rafah” (October 2004), the flood of biased condemnations in the 2006 Lebanon War, the so-called “Gaza beach incident” (June 2006), false charges of war crimes in Jenin (2002), etc. HRW misuses and exploits international law to further political campaigns against Israel.

Notes

1 Al Haq and Defence for Children International submitted a written statement to the Council.

2 "The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt. None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.” Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 2008

3 Echoing the Palestinian narrative, Stork alleges that Israel “denies civilians the food, fuel and medicine needed to survive”.

4 For examples, see NGO Monitor’s analyses of HRW’s Lebanon War reporting.

5 See Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 2008

Themes: Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HomePage Essential: Human Rights Watch (HRW) October 17, 2006

NGO Monitor Updates:
IDF investigation concludes that use of cluster munitions in 2006 Lebanon war did not violate international law
December 25, 2007

NGO Monitor Reports: "HRW and Amnesty Promote Caterpillar Boycott"
April 13, 2005
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Human Rights Watch letter to Knesset condemning terror suspect detention bill
April 12, 2006
NGO Monitor Digest (Vol. 4 No. 8)

NGO Monitor Reports: Report on HRW’s Activities in 2006: Political Bias Undermines Human Rights
June 26, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: HRW/FIDH/OMCT statement on NGO official linked to PFLP
May 14, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Analysis of Ken Roth´s Defense of HRW´s Policy on Israel
March 15, 2007
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Gaza beach incident: Timeline of HRW involvement and activities June 9-21 2006
June 21, 2006
NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor Reports: Special Report: "HRW´s Report on Gaza: Lacking Credibility"
October 18, 2004
NGO Monitor

Articles of Interest: "The Work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Evidence from Colombia"
February 02, 2007
Andres Ballesteros, Jorge A. Restrepo, Michael Spagat, and Juan F. Vargas

The Ford Foundation perpetuates its dislike of Jews

I drive a Ford now - we bought a Ford because I wanted to "buy America" - but after learning how the Ford Foundation supports the entity calling itself "palestine" and the entity's export of human murderers who thrive on killing Jewish men, women, and children, it will be the last Ford that I will ever own. Ever. From NGO-Monitor:

The Ford Foundation’s 2006 grants to NGOs involved in the Israeli-palestinian conflict may reflect some changes from 2005.

But overall, Ford (in cooperation with the New Israel Fund) continued to support many problematic NGOs in 2006. These include major international organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) as well as palestinian NGOs such as the DWRC and PHRO, which promote the anti-Israel boycott movement. These organizations conduct some productive programs, but often exploit human rights rhetoric as part of the Durban strategy of demonizing Israel, while opposing a two state solution. This report aims to draw the Ford Foundation’s attention to the fact that continued funding for these radical political NGOs fuels the conflict and impedes the compromises necessary for a settlement.

Many of these NGOs may also be planning to participate in the 2009 Durban conference, called as a follow-up to the 2001conference in which Ford-funded groups led the demonization of Israel.

Contents:

Introduction: Ford Foundation’s Grantees

Ford’s 2006 Funding to NGOs:

General Grants
Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO)
Democracy and Workers Rights Center (DWRC)
Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center (JLAC)
Muwatin: Palestinian Institute for the Study of Democracy
International Peacebuilding Alliance (Interpeace)
New Israel Fund (NIF)
Designated Grants
PANORAMA: The Palestinian Center for the Dissemination of Democracy and Community Development
Save the Children – UK (SCF)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Conclusion

Introduction: Ford Foundation’s Grantees

The 2001 Durban conference revealed that many of the Ford-funded NGOs purporting to be apolitical human rights activists were in fact promoting a clear anti-Israel bias. Following intense criticism, including 2003 Congressional hearings on Ford funding for radical NGOs like the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights (LAW) and Al Mezan, Ford released new funding guidelines. A memorandum released on 8 January 2004 stated: “By countersigning this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.” Ford also clarified in this memo that “this prohibition applies to all of the organization’s funds, not just those provided through a grant from Ford.”

NGO Monitor's report on allocations for 2005 detailed a number of Ford-funded NGOs whose "activities are primarily political, and… [which] exploit human rights rhetoric to delegitimize Israel, while undermining efforts towards a peaceful end to the conflict." While many high profile 2005 recipients were not listed in 2006, including the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Al Haq, Miftah, and the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, this may reflect multiple year grants in 2005 which are carried over and therefore not listed again for 2006. If funding has indeed ceased, this is a marked improvement in avoiding reducing Ford’s support for the most virulent “Durban strategy” NGOs that focus primarily on demonization of Israel However, highly political NGOs such as PCHR , Al-Mezan, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA), and Ir Amim continued to list Ford as a funding source on their websites, although they were not included in Ford’s 2006 report.[1]

Three 2006 grantees reviewed in this report also received grants in 2005: Human Rights Watch (for programs in Mexico and Brazil), International Commission of Jurists (general grant in 2005; directed grant in 2006 to the African Court on Human and People’s Rights), and the New Israel Fund (a five-year partnership). Despite the Ford Foundation’s pledge to stop “support[ing] organizations whose conduct is antithetical to our objectives of promoting peace, justice, tolerance and understanding,” in 2006 Ford continued to support several other NGOs that promote an anti-Israel agenda under the guise of human rights advocacy.

2006 Ford Foundation Grantees:

General Grants

Palestinian Human Rights Organization (PHRO)

The PHRO, a member of the EMHRN and FIDH (both of which are heavily involved in the demonization of Israel, as detailed by NGO Monitor), received $150,000 from the Ford Foundation in 2006 “to promote and protect the human rights of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon through legal aid, research, education and training.” The PHRO calls itself “a non-partisan institute” that dedicates itself to “monitoring and documenting human rights violations, education and training on human rights, research, advocacy and lobby, dialogue and legal aid” for Palestinians in Lebanon. PHRO is listed as having participated in the 2001 Durban Conference and continues to promote the NGO strategy adopted there: The document produced by this conference accuses Israel of “apartheid and ethnic cleansing,” as well as “perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including…acts of genocide,” and calls for “complete and total isolation of Israel.”

A PHRO report on the 2006 Lebanon War, published in July 2006, denounces what it terms a repeat of the “Quana genocide” by the Israelis against the Lebanese. While the authors recognize that the war was conducted in response to the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers, PHRO neglects to condemn this as a crime. The report calls on Hezbollah to cease firing rockets from populated areas in Lebanon to protect Lebanese civilians, but, it does not denounce the rocket fire aimed exclusively at Israeli civilians. Furthermore, the report argues that “civilians especially children” were the “non-neutralized target” of the IDF and accuses Israel of “crimes against humanity.”

Another example of demonization was the PHRO-hosted Palestinian Debate Meeting, “What Do Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon Want?” which took place in Beirut in October 2005. The statement issued by the meeting advocated the “right of return” for Palestinians to all of Israel (equivalent to opposing a two-state peace agreement), and discussed the need to “organize Palestinian arms – to be considered as a political weapon.” Through this funding, Ford violated its post-Durban pledge, which promises to “never support groups that promote or condone bigotry or violence, or that challenge the very existence of legitimate, sovereign states like Israel.”

Democracy and Workers Rights Center in Palestine (DWRC)

Ford provided the DWRC $200,000 “for training, networking and legal aid on protection and promotion of labor rights in Palestine and the Arab Region” in 2006. The DWRC is active in promoting labor rights for Palestinians, but often includes a rejectionist anti-Israel agenda that fuels the conflict. For instance, the DWRC is part of the PNGO network that signed a “call for a comprehensive academic boycott of Apartheid Israel” in May 2005. The DWRC uses inflammatory language to describe the situation of the Palestinians, referring to the community’s current status as an “unrelenting tragedy.” The constructive work that the DWRC does in the area of labor rights does not justify Ford funding an organization that promotes demonization.

Throughout 2007, the DWRC is co-sponsoring a program on women’s rights in the workplace with the Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development (PWWSD). This program (funded by both Ford and the European Union) represents some of the DWRC’s beneficial work in the community. The Legal Aid and Human Rights program within the DWRC focuses on challenges and weaknesses in the Palestinian legal system. The program’s goal is to “support and convince Palestinian policymakers that establishing a socially just Palestinian society in which employers respect employee rights in accordance with internationally recognized human rights principles bolsters Palestine’s credibility and influence, and thus enforces Palestine’s legitimate place in the world.” In this area of its work, the DWRC endeavors to empower marginalized groups, protect workers’ rights, reinforce the rule of law, and develop further human rights awareness.

Other DWRC programs, however, require further scrutiny by Ford to ensure compliance with the post-Durban guidelines. In February 2006, the Democracy and Workers Rights Center launched an emergency job creation project “in response to massive unemployment among the Palestinian labor force after the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada on 28 September 2000 due to Israeli military closures and economic measures aiming at preventing Palestinian workers from working in the Israel labor market and disrupting the Palestinian economy.” Here, the DWRC fails to acknowledge that these measures were implemented as a result of Palestinian terror and violence and ignores the effects of Palestinian corruption and infighting on their economy.

Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center (JLAC)

The Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center received $100,000 “for a program of advocacy and legal aid in Jerusalem and the West Bank” in 2006. Established in 1974, JLAC’s vision is “a liberated Democratic Palestinian Society governed by the rule of Law.” However, according to a more detailed version on the FIDH website:

The JLAC offers legal advice and representation to Palestinians facing the consequences of the ongoing battle for political, economic and demographic control. That battle is waged, particularly in Jerusalem, through policies of arbitrary arrest and detention, house demolition, identity card confiscation, denial of residency rights, land seizures, and other measures which essentially violate the inalienable right of Palestinians to live, develop and prosper in their homeland.
JLAC has been a signatory to a number of letters submitted to the UN and the international community, including the May 2005 boycott letter mentioned above. For example, a 3 October 2006 letter to the “Representatives of the International Community” blames Israel for the infighting between Hamas and Fatah factions: “It must be recognized that the current crisis stems from the almost 40-year-long Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip…[this letter was written after Israel's disengagement from Gaza]. ”

Another such letter dated 21 November 2006 to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights signed by several Palestinian NGOs including JLAC describes the current situation in the Palestinian Authority with inflammatory and biased language: “The current reality in the OPT is one of gross and systematic violations of international human rights law, as well as serious and grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, amounting to war crimes.” The same letter describes the separation barrier as the “Annexation Wall.” This language and exploitation of international legal terminology defy the Ford Foundation’s new funding guidelines, which restrict Ford from funding any organization which promotes or engages in “bigotry.”

Muwatin: Palestinian Institute for the Study of Democracy

Muwatin received $180,000 from Ford in 2006 “for policy studies and research informing debate on the issues of democracy, Islamism and secularism and for public education on the performance of the Palestinian Legislative Council.” Muwatin claims to “promote the study and development of democracy in Palestine and in the region” and publishes a bi-monthly newsletter entitled Parliamentary Horizons, a “critical newsletter focusing on the work of Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), and Other Critical Issues.”Muwatin was a signatory of the aforementioned May 2005 letter from the PNGO network that called for an academic boycott of “Apartheid Israel,” which violates Ford’s post-Durban prohibitions.

The summaries of Muwatin’s books on its website shed light on its political agenda. In its most recent book, Where Now for Palestine: The Demise of the Two-State Solution, Muwatin characterizes “Palestine” as “The Last Colonial Issue” in the book’s introduction. This book discusses the “illusory” nature of the two-state solution. Another book, State Formation in Palestine, “challenges the widely prevalent view that the Palestinian Authority collapsed because of its internal governance failures, its lack of commitment to democracy and its failure to control corruption.” The authors concede that “while there were indeed internal failures of governance, the institutional architecture set up by the Oslo agreements established an asymmetric Israeli control over the emerging Palestinian state and this was responsible for many of the most serious failures of governance.” In essence, this book blames Israel for the failures of the Palestinian Authority. Another book, Liberation, Democratization, and Transition to Statehood in the Third World examines South Africa as a model for the future Palestinian state, which compares Israel to the Apartheid South Africa regime. The clear bias present in these books promotes the Durban Strategy and counters the Ford Foundation’s mission to “strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement,” and contradicts Ford’s new funding guidelines.

International Peacebuilding Alliance (Interpeace)

In 2006, the Ford Foundation granted the International Peacebuilding Alliance, or Interpeace, $160,000 “for two parallel processes of dialogue aimed at articulating a common vision of the future for Palestinian and Israeli societies.” This organization “assists societies torn by war to overcome conflict and to build lasting peace. It does this by promoting processes of consultation, research and analysis with all sectors of society, including international assistance agencies and donors.” Interpeace conducts field programs in Guatemala, Peru, Central African Gangs, Rwanda, Burundi, Guinea-Bassau, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. Interpeace seeks to carry out this mission through dialogue between the affected groups of people, particularly those with minority positions in a conflict.

Despite Interpeace’s claims to be promoting constructive dialogues, the information on its website contains notable biases that are not consistent with this goal. Its Palestine Program section, uses language that reinforces Palestinianian victimization myths: “For Palestinians, the last 100 years have brought colonisation, expulsion and military occupation.”

In addition, the claims regarding the “dialogue programs” are not verifiable. Between November 2004 and July 2005, Interpeace claimed to have facilitated a dialogue between Gaza settlers and “left-wing activists” from southern Kibbutzim. After eight months of dialogue, the sponsors contended that “all of the settlers who took part in the meetings, left their homes peacefully… [and] the left-wing participants agreed to help the settlers together after the evacuation [of Gaza].” No further details are given about participants or program content.

Another dialogue program allegedly facilitated meetings between the National Committee of Local Arab Authorities in Israel and the SHAS party (the Association of Torah-Observant Sephardis) . Since September 2005, Interpeace has worked with the National Committee of Local Arab Authorities to develop a common standpoint on the future constitution of Israel, in order to help the Arab-Israeli community define their role in Israel. Through its work with the SHAS party, Interpeace aimed “to bridge some of the internal divisions within the party and clarify its geopolitical vision for the future of Israel and its relations with the Palestinian people.” The ultimate goal of this project is to enable the SHAS party to “engage with other sectors of Israeli society to develop a common agenda for peaceful coexistence with the Palestinian people.” The details of this dialogue, however, could not be verified and the content of neither dialogue program is available for outside scrutiny of potential bias.

New Israel Fund (NIF)

After the Durban funding controversy, the Ford Foundation announced a five-year partnership with the New Israel Fund with a $20 million grant to establish a new peace and social justice fund. This grant was renewed in September 2007. Its remit is to support organizations in Israel in order to achieve three main goals: “promoting civil rights and human rights in Israel; promoting equity and equal opportunities for the Palestinian minority in within Israel; [and] promoting a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The New Israel Fund is particularly active in funding many NGOs in the Arab sector in Israel.

Through its grant program, the NIF funds many NGOs and individuals that argue for the complete removal of the Jewish elements of Israel. Some of these NGOs go beyond the scope of their mandates in their use of inflammatory language to promote the destruction of Israel. Shmuel Rosner at Haaretz commented on this problem in his 4 April 2007 blog:

The New Israel Fund (NIF) gives a lot of money to organizations like Adalah which played a central role in the provocative document [The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel], and this fact compelled Garber [executive director of the American branch of NIF] to engage in verbal acrobatics. They played a role, he says, but this is not the main issue for which they exist. If they become an organization whose principal objective is to implement the manifest, the NIF will have to reconsider [funding them].

Other politicized organizations and individuals receiving money from NIF are also involved in demonization and promotion of the boycott movement. Examples include Shamai Leibowitz, as documented in a previous NGO Monitor article, and the Mossawa Center which argues that only “Palestinian Arabs are the indigenous people of the country” ignoring Jewish historical ties to Israel and Jewish communal continuity. According to Mossawa, Israel cannot be both a democracy and a Jewish state, declaring Israel “inherently illegitimate.” The same document calls on Israel to grant Israeli Arabs and their descendents the right to return to the land from which they fled in 1948, and argues for the abolishment of Israel’s Law of Return. This “opposition to the existence of the State of Israel” contradicts Ford’s guidelines.

2006 Ford Foundation Grantees:

Designated Grants

Over the past year, the Ford Foundation also funded several other politicized organizations. Although these grants were designated toward specific programs, money is fungible and NGO budgets are at times diverted to other activities.

PANORAMA: The Palestinian Center for the Dissemination of Democracy and Community Development

Located in the Palestinian Territories, PANORAMA received $90,000 from the Ford Foundation “to enable participants in the second phase of the Palestinian-Israeli Young Political Leaders Program to engage in dialogue and address key contemporary issues to enhance peace in the Middle East.” PANORAMA advocates for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank with Jerusalem as a shared capital between Israel and the future Palestine. A signatory on the May 2005 academic boycott as part of the PNGO network, PANORAMA’s mission involves working “to contribute to community development…as a means to build a pluralistic Palestinian civil society.”

Despite the fact that the Palestinian-Israeli Young Political Leaders Program seems to be a constructive program, it is important to note that PANORAMA politicizes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by using biased language and unbalanced accusations. In its report on Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, entitled “The Israeli ‘Disengagement’ Plan: Gaza will be Vacated but still Occupied,” PANORAMA calls the disengagement “a colonialist strategy: the occupier gets to choose not only its own representatives, but those of the occupied as well, with no respect to political agreements or initiatives.” Israel’s plan, PANORAMA contends, “is no surprise to the Palestinians: it has always been that Israel destroys and the Palestinians pick up the pieces.” In a PowerPoint presentation denouncing Israeli settlements, PANORAMA distorts the conflict by using provocative language, referring to Jewish settlements as “colonies,” to Palestinian towns as “ghettos,” and to the security fence as “the annexation wall.” The presentation also argues that “Israel will keep finding excuses to blame Palestinians for not abiding by the performance based road map” and blames Israel for “destroying the Two-State Solution” by building the security fence. No mention is made of Hamas’s failure to reject violence or to recognize previous peace agreements. By supporting PANORAMA in spite of its politicized and accusatory language that fails to denounce Palestinian government-sponsored violence, the Ford Foundation supports “violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state,” rather than abiding by its new guidelines.

Save the Children – UK (SCF)

The Save the Children Fund received two grants from the Ford Foundation in 2006: $50,000 was dispersed to support the prospective Save the Children China Foundation, and $200,000 was given to Save the Children to fund human rights education in Egypt, Lebanon, and Morocco. Save the Children “fight[s] for children in the UK and around the world who suffer form poverty, disease, injustice and violence, working with them to find lifelong answers to the problems they face.” While Save the Children does impressive work, its publications contain biases and omissions that should be recognized by Ford.

In Israel, Save the Children works through a partner organization, Al Tufula, “to address the psychosocial support needs of children who have witnessed violence and are exposed to great risk.” Al Tufula “is a non-profit independent organization founded in 1984 by Palestinian women citizens of Israel in order to develop Early Childhood Education for Palestinian children in Israel and to improve the status of Palestinian women.” This NGO “serves the Palestinian citizens of Israel and networks with regional Arab organizations as well as international groups on specific issues.” Within Israel, Al Tufula has partnered with several of the highly politicized NGOs watched by NGO Monitor, including Adalah, the Arab Association for Human Rights, and the Ma’an Network. Save the Children’s work in Israel focuses exclusively on Palestinian and Arab children in Israel and does not benefit the Jewish children who have also been affected by the ongoing violence. Accordingly, SCF fails to follow its own belief that “all children are equally entitled to human rights.”

On 11 July 2006, Save the Children published a brief update on “Living with the Wall.” In this article, Save the Children “urge[s] the Israeli government to heed the experience of Palestinian children, and…to immediately stop construction of the Wall and dismantle the sections of the Wall already in existence.” By doing so, SCF ignores the right of Israeli children to grow up without the danger of being killed by suicide bombers.

Human Rights Watch (HRW)

Human Rights Watch, a 2005 Ford grant recipient, received a $300,000 grant for an HIV/AIDS program and a $60,000 grant for a full-time researcher in Brazil in 2006. NGO Monitor has documented in detail the anti-Israel activities of this NGO including its participation in the Durban conference, and its disproportionate condemnations of Israel when exercising its legitimate right to self defense.

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

In 2005 ICJ received a general support grant for $325,000. In contrast, in 2006 it received $40,000 to organize a meeting to improve the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. These directed funds, however, still promote the ICJ, which continues to support its highly politicized anti-Israel affiliates, Al-Haq and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. These organizations frequently distort the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and demonize Israel, which is counter to Ford’s prohibition of giving “sub-grants to any entity that engages in [violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state].

Conclusion

The Ford Foundation released new guidelines after the 2001 Durban conference which state that its grantees “‘will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.’ This prohibition applies to all of the organization's funds, not just those provided through a grant from Ford.” It is impossible to know whether Ford has ceased funding for radical 2005 grant recipients, such as Al Mezan and others. And in 2006, Ford provided new or continuing grants to politicized NGOs with a strong anti-Israel and anti-peace agenda. This is inconsistent with Ford’s claimed objectives: to “strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation, and advance human achievement”. Furthermore, in the preparations for the planned 2009 Durban follow-up conference, the evidence presented in this report demonstrates that there is a very real danger that Ford-funded NGOs will again lead the demonization of Israel.

Endnote:1. NGO Monitor contacted the Ford Foundation repeatedly throughout March 2007 to establish whether any 2005 grant recipients continued to receive support in 2006, through multi-year grants or dispersions of previous grants. Despite several attempts, however, Ford did not provide a substantive response.

Related NGOs:

NGO Index: New Israel Fund, October 25, 2006
NGO Index: Save the Children Fund, October 25, 2006
NGO Index: Human Rights Watch (HRW), October 17, 2006
NGO Index: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), October 17, 2006
NGO Index: Ford Foundation, October 08, 2006